Manipur High Court
Smt. Moirangthem (Ongbi) Ibetombi Devi vs The State Of Manipur Through The ... on 8 April, 2024
Author: A. Guneshwar Sharma
Bench: A. Guneshwar Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
WP(C)No.871 of 2017
Smt. Moirangthem (ongbi) Ibetombi Devi, aged about 47 years, W/o
(late) M. Suresh Singh, Ex-Constable No.87007, resident of Moirang
Thoya Leikai, BPO and PS Moirang, District Bishnupur, Manipur.
......Petitioner
- Versus -
1. The State of Manipur through the Additional Chief Secretary/Special
Secretary/Commissioner (Home), Government of Manipur, Imphal,
Manipur.
2. The Joint Secretary (Home), Government of Manipur, Imphal,
Manipur.
3. The Director General of Police, Government of Manipur, Imphal,
Manipur.
4. The Superintendent of Police, Senapati District, Manipur.
5. The Principal Secretary/Commissioner (Finance), Government of
Manipur, Imphal, Manipur.
6. The Under Secretary (Pension Cell), Government of Manipur, Imphal,
Manipur.
7. The Accountant General(A&E), Manipur, Imphal.
.... Respondents
BEFORE
WP(C)No.871 of 2017 Page 1
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. GUNESHWAR SHARMA
For the Petitioner : Mr. Ch. Robinchandra, Adv.
For the Respondents : Mr. H. Samarjit, GA R1-6, Mr. Samarjeet,
Sr. PCCG R7.
Date of reserved. : 04.12.2023 & 04.04.2024.
Date of order : 08.04.2024
JUDGMENT & ORDER
(CAV)
[1] Heard Mr. Ch. Robinchandra, learned counsel for the
petitioner, Mr. H. Samarjit, learned GA for the State respondent Nos. 1 to 6
and Mr. S. Samarjeet, learned Sr. PCCG for respondent No.7.
[2] By the present writ petition, the petitioner prayed for quashing
the impugned order dated 02.11.2017 and to grant Special Pension to the
petitioner for the service of her husband, Late, M. Suresh Singh, Constable
No.870007 under the Rules of Manipur Services (Special Pension), Rules
1982. The point for determination in the present case is whether a police
personnel discharged from service as invalid as result of injuries suffered in
attacks by militants and subsequently died, would be entitled to Special
Pension under the Rules of 1982.
[3] The facts and circumstances narrated in the petition are that
the petitioner's husband (Late) M. Suresh Singh during his life time was
WP(C)No.871 of 2017 Page 2
serving as Police Constable being Constable No.870007 in the Department
of Home, Government of Manipur and posted in the Office of the
Superintendent of Police, Senapati District. While he was in service, he had
been declared as unfit in the Government service by the State Medical Board
Manipur because he was suffering from an acute chronic mental disease
after sustaining injuries in militant attack. Therefore, he was allowed to retire
from his service on invalid pension on medical ground vide order dated
29.08.1996 as issued by the Superintendent of Police, Senapati District,
Manipur w.e.f. 29.08.1996. As per the Office record as issued by the
Superintendent of Police, Senapati District, Manipur vide letter dated
13.12.2005 the petitioner's husband initially entered his service as Police
Constable w.e.f. 12.11.1987 and retired from service on Invalid pension with
effect from 23.8.1996. The petitioner's husband (Late) M. Suresh Singh, Ex-
Constable No.870007 expired on 12.11.1996 while awaiting the releasing of
pension and other retirement benefits. During his life time he did not draw
his pension and the other retirement benefits including G.P.F. and leave
Salaries etc. On his death, he left behind his wife (the present petitioner) and
his 3(three) minor sons.
[4] On the expiry of M. Suresh Singh, Ex-Constable No.870007,
the Accountant General, Manipur issued a sanction letter dated 20.05.1997
WP(C)No.871 of 2017 Page 3
for payment of death gratuity of Rs.25,532.00p. (Rupees twenty five
thousand five hundred thirty two) only to his wife, the present writ petitioner.
Except this small amount of death gratuity, the respondents did not pay any
amount nor granted the family pension to the petitioner till date. The said
letter stated that the payment was made on the identification as per P.P.O.
No.7994. The petitioner just after the death of her husband, M. Suresh Sigh,
Ex-Constable No.870007, she had submitted all the necessary pension
papers/documents including the service book to the concerned authorities.
But the respondents did not make payment of the family pension to the
petitioner as admissible according to the existing Rules. The poor family was
wholly depended upon the monthly salaries of the deceased employees,
Late M. Suresh Singh, Ex-Constable No.870007. Due to the loss of the sole
bread winner the poor family could not find any means to manage its affairs
in the normal course of events of the day-to-day lives. The petitioner being
a widow and her sons were all minors she had lost her strength to find daily
breads. Therefore, she filed a writ petition which was registered as W.P.(C)
No.479 of 2006 praying for giving a direction to the respondents to grant
family pension as admissible under the existing rules to come to the normal
course of lives of the family otherwise the poor family members will go
starvation. During the pendency of the case the petitioner submitted a
WP(C)No.871 of 2017 Page 4
representation dated 27.12.2011 to the authorities to consider the case and
to entitle herself to get/enjoy the special pension or family pension in respect
of the death of her husband being his cause of death was due to injury
received while performing his official duties as admissible under either (i)
The Manipur Services (Special Pension) Rules, 1982 or (ii) The Manipur
Services (Extra-Ordinary Pension) Rules, 1995 and when the case was
listed for hearing on 6.1.2015 the Hon'ble High Court heard the case and on
perusal of the relevant records/documents was pleased to dispose of the
said case i.e., WP (C) No.479 of 2006 directing the respondents to consider
and dispose of the said representation dated 27.12.2011, copy of which is
to be given afresh to the respondents within a period of 1(one) week, by
taking appropriate decision within a period of 2(two) months from the date
of receipt of a copy of the representation.
[5] As per the Hon'ble High Court's order dated 6.1.2015 passed
in W.P. (C) No.479 of 2006, the petitioner through her counsel furnished the
representation dated 27.12.2011 [Annexure-A-5] submitted by her to the
authorities and the Hon'ble Court's order passed in W.P. (C) No.479 of 2006
along with a notice dated 13.1.2015 for doing the needful in terms of the
Hon'ble High Court's order.
WP(C)No.871 of 2017 Page 5
[6] The Superintendent of Police, Senapati District in connection
with High Court's order dated 6.01.2015 passed in W.P. (C) No.479 of 2006
submitted the letter dated 28.02.2015 [Annexure-A-8] to the Inspector
General of Police (Adm.), Manipur, Imphal. The said letter clearly stated that
on 02.06.1995 at about 7:00 a.m. an incident of ambush was occurred by
suspected Kuki militant on NH-39 near Leikop, about 8 kms. South to
Kangpokpi Police Station in which R. Hopinson, IPS, the then SDPO/SPT
and C/No.867116 S. Kroni Mao succumbed to bullet injuries on the spot and
some constables/riflemen received injuries including Late M. Suresh Singh.
They were escort personnel of SDPO/SPT. It refers to case FIR
No.128(6)1995KPI-PS U/S121/121-A/307/326/302/427 IPC, 13 UA(P) act
and 25(1-B)A. Act. Accordingly, the families of R. Hopinson, IPS and
C/No.867116 S. Kroni Mao are enjoying family pension under Rule 4 of
Manipur Services (Special Pension) Rules, 1982 before introduction of
Manipur Liberalized Pension Rules, 2000. Police Constable M. Suresh
expired on 12.11.1996 due to injury caused by suspected Kuki militants by
way of ambush and torture.
[7] In the light of facts ascertained as noted above it is stated in
letter dated 28.02.2015 that the case of invalid pension in respect of Ex-
Constable No.870007 M. Suresh Singh in Senapati District Police may
WP(C)No.871 of 2017 Page 6
kindly be moved/processed with Home Department, Government of Manipur
under the Manipur Services (Special Pension) Rules, 1982/the Manipur
Services (Extra Ordinary Pension) Rules, 1995 within the meaning of Rules
4(iii) of the Manipur Services (Liberalized Pension) Rules, 2000 for the ends
of justice.
[8] Even though the Superintendent of Police, Senapati District,
Manipur submitted the detailed report of causing death of the Ex-Constable
M. Suresh Sigh (Constable No.870007) and those personnel who expired
on the spot had already granted the facility of family pension under Rule 4
of Manipur Services (Special Pension) Rules, 1982 before introduction of
Manipur Liberalized Pension Rules, 2000 the authorities failed to consider
the case of the petitioner. Being aggrieved the petitioner filed a contempt of
Court case against the authorities for wilful disobedient of the Hon'ble High
Court's order being Contempt Case (C) No.151 of 2015 and in the said
Contempt Case (C) No.151 of 2015 the respondent No.1 filed an affidavit-
in-opposition on 3.11.2017 before the Hon'ble High Court as appended an
order even No.20/1(38)/2006-H(LC): dated 2.11.2017 [Annexure-A-9]
passed by the Joint Secretary (Home), Govt. of Manipur stating that in
compliance of the Hon'ble High Court's order dated 6.1.2015 passed in
WP(C)No.871 of 2017 Page 7
W.P.(C) No.479 of 2006, the representation dated 27.11.2011 was hereby
disposed as devoid of merit.
[9] The Hon'ble High Court on the basis of the order dated
2.11.2017 filed by the respondent No.1, the Contempt Case (C) No.151 of
2015 was closed vide the order dated 3.11.2017 passed in the said contempt
case. However, the Hon'ble High Court further ordered that if the petitioner
is aggrieved by the rejection of the representation by the respondent
authorities, liberty is granted to the petitioner to approach the competent
forum for challenging the same in as much as direction of this Court was to
consider and dispose of the representation of the petitioner by the
respondents.
[10] It is stated that the respondents while considering and
examining the representation dated 27.11.2011 of the petitioner, they had
failed to consider and full examination of the Manipur Services (Special
Pension) Rules, 1982. As per Rule 2(i)(a) of the Manipur Services (Special
Pension) Rules, 1982 which clearly says that "Employees of the
government of Manipur other than Casual employees, with a minimum of
three years of service under the Government of Manipur" and, Rule 4(i) of
the Manipur Services (Special Pension) Rules, 1982 which says that "In the
event of the death of a Government servant defined in Rule 2(i) serving in
WP(C)No.871 of 2017 Page 8
connection with the affairs of the State of Manipur caused by violence, or
wrongful acts of a person or persons believed to be members of an extremist
organization, the Governor of Manipur, shall, subject to the provision of
these rules sanction a Special Pension equivalent to the "total emoluments"
(including Dearness Allowances and Compensatory allowance) last drawn
by the deceased Government Servant to the persons to draw his family
pension under the Pension Rules governing the deceased Government
Servants. Under Rule 2(i)(a) read with Rule 4(i) of the Manipur Services
(Special Pension) Rules, 1982 the petitioner is entitled to enjoy the benefit
of special pension for the past service of her husband, M. Suresh Singh,
Constable No.870007 because he had served more than three years when
he met the ambush occurred on 2.6.1995. Rule 4(i) of the Manipur Services
(Special Pension) Rules, 1982 does not say that the victim must be death at
the spot but it says that the event of death caused by violence.
Affidavit-in-Opposition of R- 3 & 4
[11] The respondent Nos. 3 & 4 filed counter affidavit stating that
with reference to para No. 3 of the writ petition, the answering deponent
humbly submits that as per office record the petitioner's husband M. Suresh
Singh joined at service on 12.11.1987 as a police constable bearing No.
870007 and he retired from service on invalid pension and struck off w.e.f.
WP(C)No.871 of 2017 Page 9
29.08.1996 and he did not die in militant attack unlike others. It is stated that
the benefits entitled with the petitioner's husband had been duly sanctioned.
It is further submitted that the Death certificated and other related
documents pertaining to invalid pension were submitted to Dy. Secretary
(Pension Cell), government of Manipur Vide letter No. 42/INVP/96-SP-SPT
dated 05.03.1997 of the Superintendent of Police, Senapati District. It is
further submitted that all necessary pension papers and documents
including the service book had been submitted to the concerned authorities
for further necessary action. However, Sr. Accounts Officer (Pension) A.G.
Manipur, Imphal vide letter No. Pen/4-282(F)/IW/2007 dated 28.01.2015
intimated the Counsel of the petitioner that Shri M. Suresh Sigh had
rendered qualifying service of 8 (eight) years 9 (nine) months and 12 days
which is less than 10 (ten) years of qualifying service under Rule 49 (i) and
50 (i) (a) of M.C.S. (Pension) Rules 1977 as amended from time to time and
he is admissible to the service gratuity and retirement gratuity as calculated
under Rule 49 and 50 ibid respectively and authorized to the petitioner under
GPO/SF/2619. Further, it was stated in the said letter that Kroni Mao Ex-
Constable 867116 and R. Hopingson, IPS were killed in the incident of
ambush but Ex. Constable No. 870007 M. Suresh Singh expired after
retirement from service. Accordingly Special pension was sanctioned to the
WP(C)No.871 of 2017 Page 10
family of the deceased employee namely Kroni Mao and Hopingson under
Rule 4 of Manipur (Special Pension) Rules, 1982 which was in force before
the introduction of Manipur Liberalized Pension Rules, 2000. By the said
letter, the Counsel of the petitioner was informed that in the above facts and
rule position, neither family pension under Rule 54 of MCS (Pension) Rules,
1977 nor Special Pension under Manipur Services (Special Pension) Rules,
1982 is applicable to the petitioner's husband. The present petitioner has
concealed this material facts of the information given by the Accountant
General, Manipur to the Counsel of the petitioner. Therefore, the present
petition is liable to be dismissed for concealment of material facts. It is
pointed out that the death of the petitioner's husband was not caused by the
violence or wrongful acts of a person or persons believed to the members of
an extremist organization. Therefore, the entitlement of special pension to
the petitioner does not arise at the in view of Rule 4 (i) of the Manipur Service
(special pension) Rules 1982 as Ex. Constable No. 870007 M. Suresh Singh
expired after being retired from service. He was not in service when at the
time of his death. Further, the petitioner's husband had not served for more
than 10 (ten) years of qualifying service as stipulated under Rule 49 (i) and
50 (a) of M.C.S. (Pension) Rules 1977 as amended from time to time.
Counter affidavit of respondent 7
WP(C)No.871 of 2017 Page 11
[12] It is submitted that the Comptroller and Auditor General of India
discharges his functions as defined in the Articles 149, 150 & 151 of the
Constitution of India read with the Comptroller and Auditor General's
(Duties, Power and Conditions of Services) Act, 1971. Sections 10, 11 & 12
of DPC Act, 1971, which entrusts the discharge of Accounts and Entitlement
functions till he is relieved from such duties by the Governor. It is submitted
that office of the Accountant General is the field office where the concerned
Accountant General performs his/her duties within the parameters laid down
by the C&AG of India which are in consonance with the Constitution of India
read with the DPC Act, 1971. As per the existing arrangements, the C&AG
of India discharges Accounts & Entitlement related functions such as GPF,
Pension and Gazetted Entitlement in Manipur, but the administrative
authority and power vests with the State Government authorities alone. This
office has no power to implement decisions that are not in consonance with
rules, regulation and Government Instructions. The power to relax the rules
or waive any condition in the rules/instructions rests solely with the State
Government. It is only after the State Government issues a specific order in
compliance of a court's order, either relaxing the rules/instructions, the
Accountant General can implement such decisions/order. Therefore, the
primary responsibility in implementing a court's order that requires relaxation
WP(C)No.871 of 2017 Page 12
of rules/instructions rests with the state Government. This office only
implements the decisions taken by the State authorities in various issues
relating to maintenance of GPF, Pension and Gazetted Entitlement.
Therefore, it is submitted that making Accountant General responsible for a
function in which he does not have any say, except for mere compliance, is
not as per the provisions. It is stated that in order to comply with the Hon'ble
High Court of Manipur order dated 06.01.2015 passed in W.P. (C) No. 479
of 2006. Respondent No. 7, Principal Accountant General (A&E), Manipur
has requested to the Principal Secretary (Home), Government of Manipur
vide Pen-I/4-282(F)/IW/2007/582 dated 26.07.2016 to furnish a decision and
issue an appropriate order. But no response has been received from the
State authority till date. It is further submitted that if the State authority,
Government of Manipur sanctions Special pension or Liberalized pension,
Respondent No. 7, Principal Accountant General (A&E), Manipur, Imphal
will act accordingly.
Rejoinder Affidavit of the petitioner to reply of the respondent Nos. 3
& 4.
[13] The petitioner states that the respondents failed to examine the
report of the SP/Senapati District submitted on 28.02.2015 to the
WP(C)No.871 of 2017 Page 13
IGP(Admn.), Govt. of Manipur (Annexure-A8 to the writ petition). By the said
report it is clearly stated on 02.06.1995 at about 7:00 am, an incident of
ambush was occurred by suspected kuki militants on NH-39 near Leikop,
about 8 Kms South to Kangpokpi Police Station in which Shri R. Hopingson,
IPS, the then SDPO/SPT and C/No.867116 S. Kironi Mao succumbed to
bullet injuries on the spot and some constables/Riflemen received injuries
including Late M. Suresh Singh. They were escort personnel of SDPO/SPT.
It refers to Case FIR No.128(6)1995 KPI-PS U/s 121/121-
A/307/326/302/427 IPS, 13UA(P) Act and 25(1-B)A Act. Accordingly the
families of R. Hopingson, IPS and C/No 867116 S. Kironi Mao are enjoying
family pension under Rule 4 of Manipur Service (Special Pension) Rules,
1982 before introduction of Manipur Liberalized Pension Rules, 2000. The
said police constable, Mr. M. Suresh Singh(C/No.870007) after the incident
was referred to the Community Health Centre, Moirang on 13.06.1995 and
then referred to Psychiatric, J.N. Hospital, Porompat for further medical
treatment. The Doctor dealing with the P/Constable opined that he is
suffering from chronic Pranoidsche Zophrienia. Hence, invalid pension since
23.08.1996 during which P/Constable M. Suresh Singh expired on
12.11.1996 due to injury caused by suspected Kuki militants by way of
ambush and torture.
WP(C)No.871 of 2017 Page 14
[14] In the light of facts ascertained as noted above it is submitted
that the case of invalid pension in r/o Ex-Constable No.870007 M. Suresh
Singh of Senapati District police may kindly to moved/processed with Home
Department, Government of Manipur under the Manipur Services(Special
Pension) Rules, 1982/The Manipur Service(Extra ordinary Pension) Rules,
1995 within the meaning of Rules 4(III) of the Manipur Services(Liberalized
Pension) Rules, 2000 for the end of justice.
Additional Affidavit filed by the petitioner dated 01.12.2021:
[15] During the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner filed an
application dated 28.10.2021 to the Superintendent of Police, Senapati
District, Government of Manipur requesting to issue(i) FORM M.S.P-I of
Rule 4 (ii) and (2) FORM M.S.P (II) of Rules 5(i) appended to the Manipur
Services(Special Pension) Rules, 1982 duly filled in and signed by the
concerned authorities in respect of my claim for grant of Special Pension
regarding the service of her husband Late M. Suresh Singh, Ex-Constable
No.870007 of SP/ Senapati so as to enable her to settle/finalize the claim
for grant of Special Pension. As contemplated in Rule 4 of the Special
Pension Rules 1982, the District Magistrate, Senapati certified that the
husband of the petitioner died due to the violence/wrongful act of some
extremist organisation. In the additional affidavit dated 01.12.2021, it is
WP(C)No.871 of 2017 Page 15
asserted that the petitioner is entitled to special pension for the death of her
husband. The Superintendent of Police, Senapati District, Manipur vide
letter No.B-132/SP-SPT/2016/2027 dated 22.2021 has submitted the
FORM M.S.P-I and FORM No.(ii) dully filled in and signed by the concerned
authorities under the Manipur Services(Special Pension), Rules 1982 to the
Inspector General of Police(Admn.) Manipur, Imphal.
[16] Mr. Ch. Robinchandra, learned counsel for the petitioner draws
the attention of this Court to "The Manipur Services (Special Pension) Rules,
1982". It is pointed out that the rules have been framed in order to grant
'special pension' equivalent to the 'total emoluments' to employees of State
Govt, All India Services, Central Govt. on deputation, PSU, etc. who died in
violence by members of extremist organisation. It is submitted that the rule
is a benevolent legislation of compensating family members of employees
died in militant action. As per Rule 2(a), an employee of State government
with 3 years of regular service who died in such action, is entitled to special
pension. Mr. Robinchandra reiterates that the rules do not stipulate that the
employee must die instantly in the militant action and it is sufficient that the
death must relate to militant's action. He has further pointed out that the
special pension under Rule 4(i) has to be granted upon a report of the
concerned District Magistrate to the effect that the death of the deceased
WP(C)No.871 of 2017 Page 16
government employee was caused by act of extremist organisation. Learned
counsel for the petitioner states that in the present case, the husband of the
petitioner worked more than three years as regular employee and as per
certificate of the District Magistrate, Senapati, the death was related to
action by an extremist organisation. It is also pointed out that the case of the
petitioner does not fall within the prohibited clauses as per Rule 8. Attention
is drawn to letter dated 28.02.2015 [Annexure-A-8] sent by the
Superintendent of Police Senapati to the Inspector General of Police
(Admn.), Manipur recommending the case of the petitioner's husband for
special pension. It is stated that respondent No. 4 cannot retract from its
stand in letter dated 28.02.2015 in the counter-affidavit and takes a different
stand altogether. Rule 4(ii) mandates that the certificate of the District
Magistrate is the conclusive proof that the employee died in militants' action.
It is prayed that writ petition be allowed and the respondents be directed to
grant special pension as per Rules of 1982 to the petitioner for death of her
husband.
[17] Mr. H. Samarjit, learned Government Advocate has submitted
that the Rules will be applicable to the government employee who died in
militant's action. In any case, the death must relate to violence by extremist
organisation. It is clarified that in the present case, the husband of the
WP(C)No.871 of 2017 Page 17
petitioner did not die in as a result of ambush unlike other persons and he
died due to some other disease after retirement. Hence, his case will not fall
within the purview of special pension as per Rules of 1982. It is prayed that
the writ petition be dismissed.
[18] This Court peruses the materials on record specially the rules
and the report submitted by District Magistrate and has considered the
submissions made at bar.
[19] The object behind legislating "The Manipur Services (Special
Pension) Rules, 1982" is to compensate for the loss to the family members
of government employees who died in militant action. The special pension
is awarded for a sum equivalent to the total emoluments. The requirement
is a certificate from the concerned District Magistrate to the effect that the
death was due to violence by extremist organisation and such certificate is
the conclusive proof of the nature of death as contemplated in Rule 4(ii). It
is also stipulated by Rule 8 that the death was not due to suicide or self-
injury, the government employee was not a member of any unlawful
organisation and so as the claimant. It is also seen that the rule does not
provide that the government employee should die instantly in the attack by
militant. It will be sufficed if the death is relatable to any action by extremist
WP(C)No.871 of 2017 Page 18
organisation. In lines of these conditions, each and every case has to be
examined for awarding special pension.
[20] In the present case, the husband of the petitioner sustained
injury in the attack by Kuki militants where two police personnel died and
others injured. Her husband was discharged from service as invalid pension.
He worked for more than three years as a regular employee. He did not
belong to any unlawful organisation and there are no materials that the
petitioners and her children are members of illegal organisation. The District
Magistrate, Senapati issued a certificate that the death of the husband of the
petitioner was due to the violence of extremist organisation. The injury was
not self-inflicted and it was not a case of suicide. Earlier, the respondent
No.4, ie, SP, Senapati was of the opinion in his letter dated 28.02.2015 that
the death by due to ambush by Kuki militants and the petitioner's was
covered by the special pension Rules of 1982. This Court is of the view that
the respondent No.4 now cannot plead in total contradiction to his earlier
recommendation and does a complete somersault. The respondents did not
deny the certificate issued by the District Magistrate, Senapati to the fact
that the death was due to militant's attack. The respondents cannot deny
their own document.
WP(C)No.871 of 2017 Page 19
[21] Accordingly, it is held that the husband of the petitioner died as
a result of the ambush by Kuki militant within the meaning of "The Manipur
Services (Special Pension) Rules, 1982" and the family is entitled to 'special
pension' equivalent to 'total emoluments' as prescribed under Rule 4. The
respondents are directed to pay same within a period of three months from
the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which an interest @ 6% per
annum from the date of application, ie, 27.12.2011 [Annexure-A-5]. In the
facts and circumstances of the case, parties are directed to bear their own
cost.
[22] Send a copy of this order to the respondent No.3 [DGP,
Manipur] and the respondent No.7 [Accountant General, Manipur] for
information and for initiating the compliance.
JUDGE
FR/NFR
John Kom
RAJKUMA Digitally signed
by RAJKUMAR
R PRIYOJIT PRIYOJIT SINGH
Date: 2024.04.08
SINGH 15:06:35 +05'30'
WP(C)No.871 of 2017 Page 20
